# data[].attributes.body
Please download to read/View Original

# data[].attributes.body
2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The overall rankings of country happiness are based on the pooled results from Gallup World Poll surveys from 2015-2017, and show both change and stability. There is a new top ranking country, Finland, but the top ten positions are held by the same countries as in the last two years, although with some swapping of places. Four different countries have held top spot in the four most recent reports- Denmark, Switzerland, Norway and now Finland.

All the top countries tend to have high values for all six of the key variables that have been found to support well-being: income, healthy life expectancy, social support, freedom, trust and generosity. Among the top countries, differences are small enough that that year-to-year changes in the rankings are to be expected.

The analysis of happiness changes from 2008-2010 to 2015-2015 shows Togo as the biggest gainer, moving up 17 places in the overall rankings from the last place position it held as recently as in the 2015 rankings. The biggest loser is Venezuela, down 2.2 points on the 0 to 10 scale.

Five of the report's seven chapters deal primarily with migration, as summarized in Chapter 1. For both domestic and international migrants, the report studies not just the happiness of the migrants and their host communities, but also of those left behind, whether in the countryside or in the source country. The results are generally positive.

Perhaps the most striking finding of the whole report is that a ranking of countries according to the happiness of their immigrant populations is almost exactly the same as for the rest of the population. The immigrant happiness rankings are based on the full span of Gallup data from 2005 to 2017, sufficient to have 117 countries with more than 100 immigrant respondents.

The ten happiest countries in the overall rankings also ll ten of the top eleven spots in the ranking of immigrant happiness. Finland is at the top of both rankings in this report, with the happiest immigrants, and the happiest population in general.

The closeness of the two rankings shows that the happiness of immigrants depends predominantly on the quality of life where they now live, illustrating a general pattern of convergence. Happiness can change, and does change, according to the quality of the society in which people live. Immigrant happiness, like that of the locally born, depends on a range of features of the social fabric, extending far beyond the higher incomes traditionally thought to inspire and reward migration. The countries with the happiest immigrants are not the richest countries, but instead the countries with a more balanced set of social and institutional supports for better lives.

While convergence to local happiness levels is quite rapid, it is not complete, as there is a 'footprint' effect based on the happiness in each source country. This effect ranges from 10% to 25%. This footprint effect, explains why immigrant happiness is less than that of the locals in the happiest countries, while being greater in the least happy countries.

A very high proportion of the international differences in immigrant happiness (as shown in Chapter 2), and of the happiness gains for individual migrants (as studied in Chapters 3 and 5) are thus explained by local happiness and source country happiness.

The explanation becomes even more complete when account is taken of international differences in a new Gallup index of migrant acceptance, based on local attitudes towards immigrants, as detailed in an Annex to the Report. A higher value for migrant acceptance is linked to greater happiness for both immigrants and the native-born, by almost equal amounts.

The report studies rural-urban migration as well, principally through the recent Chinese experience, which has been called the greatest mass migration in history. That migration shows some of the same convergence characteristics of the international experience, with the happiness of city-bound migrants moving towards, but still falling below urban averages.

The importance of social factors in the happiness of all populations, whether migrant or not, is emphasized in Chapter 6, where the happiness bulge in Latin America is found to depend on the greater warmth of family and other social relationships there, and to the greater importance that people there attach to these relationships.

The Report ends on a different tack, with a focus on three emerging health problems that threaten happiness: obesity, the opioid crisis, and depression. Although set in a global context, most of the evidence and discussion are focused on the United States, where the prevalence of all three problems has been growing faster and further than in most other countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The World Happiness Report is a publication of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, powered by data from the Gallup World Poll and Lloyd's Register Foundation, who provided access to the World Risk Poll. The 2021 Report includes data from the ICL-YouGov Behaviour Tracker as part of the COVID Data Hub from the Institute of Global Health Innovation.

# data[].attributes.body
Understanding Q0L

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UNDERSTANDING QUALITY OF LIFE | Quality of Life Observer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Quality of Life is a central and evolving issue in many environments, from the workplace, to schools, to life in general. During the last decade, more and more companies, institutions, politicians and people have started to investigate how the quality of life of employees, clients and more generally citizens can be improved.

# data[].attributes.headline
5. Standard of Living vs Quality of Life

# data[].attributes.subject
5. Standard of Living vs Quality of Life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Standard of Living vs. Quality of Life: An Overview

Standard of living refers to the level of wealth, comfort, material goods, and necessities available to a certain socioeconomic class or geographic area. Quality of life, on the other hand, is a subjective term that can measure happiness.

The two terms are often confused because there may be some perceived overlap in how they are defined. But knowing the different nuances of each can affect how you evaluate a country where you might be looking to invest some money.

Standard of Living

Standard of living is a comparison tool used when describing two different geographic areas. Metrics may include things like wealth levels, comfort, goods, and necessities that are available to people of different socioeconomic classes in those areas. The standard of living is measured by things that are easily quantified, such as income, employment opportunities, cost of goods and services, and poverty. Factors such as life expectancy, the inflation rate, or the number of paid vacation days people receive each year are also included.

Other factors commonly associated with the standard of living include:

Class disparity

Poverty rate

Quality and affordability of housing

Hours of work required to purchase necessities

Gross domestic product (GDP)

Affordable access to quality healthcare

Quality and availability of education

Incidence of disease

Infrastructure

National economic growth

Economic and political stability

Political and religious freedom

Environmental quality

Climate

Safety

The standard of living in the United States may be compared to that of Canada. It may also draw comparisons to smaller geographic areas such as New York City versus Detroit. It can also be used to compare distinct points in time. For example, the standard of living in the U.S. is considered to have greatly improved compared to a century ago. Now, the same amount of work buys a larger quantity of goods and items that were once luxuries such as refrigerators and automobiles. Leisure time and life expectancy have also increased, while annual hours worked have decreased.

One measure of standard of living is the Human Development Index (HDI), which has been used by the United Nations since 1990. It considers life expectancy at birth, expected years of schooling, mean years of schooling, and gross national income per capita to measure a country's level of development.

Quality of Life

Quality of life is a more subjective and intangible term than standard of living. As such, it can often be hard to quantify. The factors that affect the overall quality of life vary by people's lifestyles and their personal preferences. Regardless of these factors, this measure plays an important part in the financial decisions in everyone's lives. Some of the factors that can affect a person's quality of life can include conditions in the workplace, healthcare, education, and material living conditions.

The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides an excellent list of factors that can be considered in evaluating quality of life. It includes many things that citizens of the United States and other developed countries take for granted, which are not available in a significant number of other countries around the world. Although this declaration is more than 70 years old, in many ways it still represents an ideal to be achieved, rather than a baseline state of affairs. Factors that may be used to measure the quality of life include the following:

Freedom from slavery and torture

Equal protection under the law

Freedom from discrimination

Freedom of movement

Freedom of residence within one's home country

Presumption of innocence unless proved guilty

Right to marry

Right to have a family

Right to be treated equally without regard to gender, race, language, religion, political beliefs, nationality, socioeconomic status, and more

Right to privacy

Freedom of thought

Freedom of religion

Free choice of employment

Right to fair pay

Equal pay for equal work

Right to vote

Right to rest and leisure

Right to education

Right to human dignity

Standard of Living vs. Quality of Life: Flawed Indicators

Standard of living is somewhat of a flawed indicator. While the United States ranks high in many areas as a nation, the standard of living is very low for some segments of the population. For example, some of the country's poor, urban areas struggle with a lack of quality employment opportunities, short life expectancies, and higher rates of disease and illness.

Similarly, the quality of life can vary between people, making it a flawed indicator as well. There are various segments of the American population that may have a lower quality of life compared to others. They may experience discrimination in society and the workplace or don't have access to clean drinking water, proper healthcare, or education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Standard of Living vs. Quality of Life: What's the Difference?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Standard of living refers to the level of wealth, comfort, material goods, and necessities available to a certain socioeconomic class or geographic area. Quality of life, on the other hand, is a subjective term that can measure happiness. The two terms are often confused because there may be some perceived overlap in how they are defined.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 2017 How's Life? report shows the latest data on well-being in 35 OECD and 6 partner countries. It describes how inequalities touch many different aspects of people's lives, examining well-being gaps by gender, age, education and income, and migration status. It also looks at governance and well-being.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Statistics about the health of a country's citizens are present in this category. You can find stats related to birth weights, rates on smoking, HIV incidence, incidence of cancer, circulatory and other diseases, stats on infant and maternal mortality, life expectancy, suicide rates, teenage pergnancy and other health related topics.

# data[].attributes.body
2005

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global Finance Magazine - The Happiest Countries And Territories In The World 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What does being a happy country mean during a pandemic? Trust in your neighbors and your institutions makes all the difference.

# data[].attributes.body
World's top city of QoL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vienna is the world's best city to live in; Baghdad is the worst, and London, Paris and New York do not even make it into the top 35, according to international research into quality of life.

German-speaking cities dominate the rankings in the 18th Mercer Quality of Life study, with Vienna joined by Zurich, Munich, Düsseldorf and Frankfurt in the top seven.

Paris has tumbled down the league, falling 10 places to 37th, just ahead of London at 39th, almost entirely because of the city's vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

The study examined social and economic conditions, health, education, housing and the environment, and is used by big companies to assess where they should locate and how much they should pay staff.

Viennese-born Helena Hartlauer, 32, said she was not surprised at her city's top position. The municipality's social democratic government has a long tradition of investing in high-quality social housing, making Vienna almost uniquely affordable among major cities.

"I live in a 100sq metre turn-of-the-century apartment in a good area about 20 minutes' walk into the city centre. But my rent is just €800 (£625) a month." An equivalent apartment in London would cost upwards of £2,000, and even more in New York, ranked 44th in the table.

US cities perform relatively poorly in the study, largely because of issues around personal safety and crime. The highest ranking city in the US is San Francisco, at 28th; Boston is 34th. Canadian cities, led by Vancouver, far outrank their US rivals in the table.

"You don't realise how safe Vienna is until you head abroad," said Hartlauer. "We also have terrific public transport, with the underground working 24 hours at weekends, and it only costs €1 per trip [for those who buy a €365 annual card] ."

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

New York is ranked No 44 on the index. Photograph: Atlantide Phototravel/Corbis

Vienna benefited enormously from the fall of the Berlin Wall, becoming the gateway to eastern European countries that often have historic ties to the former Austro-Hungarian empire.

"Our big USP is our geographic location," said Martin Eichtinger, Austrian ambassdaor to London, who lived in Vienna for 20 years. "The fall of the Berlin Wall helped define Vienna as the hub for companies wanting to do business in central Europe."

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Revellers outside a bar in Zurich, which ranked second. Photograph: Alamy

According to the World Bank, Austria has one of the highest figures for GDP per head in the world, just behind the US and ahead of Germany and Britain, although quite some way below neighbouring Switzerland.

Zurich in Switzerland is named by Mercer as having the world's second highest quality of life, but the Viennese say their city is far more fun. "There are more students in Vienna than any other German-speaking city," said Hartlauer. "It's a very fast growing, young and lively city," she added - though she conceded she works for the city's tourist board.

Vienna has long been overlooked by British weekend city break tourists, who instead flock to Barcelona or Berlin and tend to think of Austria as somewhere for skiing, lakes and mountains.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Hyde Park, London. The city has never been in Mercer's quality-of-life top 10. Photograph: Alamy

But after an increase in budget flights from regional British cities such as Manchester and Edinburgh, Vienna is fast catching up as a popular destination. In 2015 there were 588,000 British visitors to Vienna, up 18% on the year before. The flow is both ways; Eichtinger said London has become the No 1 city destination for Austrian visitors.

"Vienna has ranked top in the last seven published rankings," said Mercer. "It scores highly in a number of categories; it provides a safe and stable environment to live in, a high level of public utilities and transport facilities, and good recreational facilities."

Best places to live in the world Source: Mercer quality of living city survey
Best places to live in the worldSource: Mercer quality of living city survey

The European migrant crisis, which has seen large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers pass through Vienna en route to Germany, has had little impact on the city of nearly 1.8 million people, said Eichtinger. "We have managed to accommodate 90,000 refugees in Austria, but the numbers have slowed in recent months."

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

The view from Mount Eden, Auckland, the highest ranking English-speaking city in the survey. Photograph: Image Broker/Rex

London has never been in the quality-of-life top 10, says Mercer, damaged by its poor scores for air pollution, traffic congestion and climate. After London, Edinburgh is the next-ranking British city, in 46th place.

Paris has suffered the biggest fall in this year's rankings. "Paris has remained stable for several years but has this year dropped 10 places overall in the overall ranking," said Mercer.

"The drop was essentially due to the terrorist attacks in 2015, however, it is important to highlight that safety issues are a very highly weighted factor within the 'basket' so any small adjustments can have a big impact on the ranking."

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Carnival revellers in Port-au-Prince. The quake-stricken Haitian capital was among the worst-ranked cities. Photograph: Dieu Nalio Chery/AP

Auckland in New Zealand was the highest ranking English-speaking city in the survey, in third place, followed by Vancouver in fifth. Australian cities also perform very highly in the survey, with Sydney 10th and Melbourne 15th. The Economist has consistently ranked Melbourne as the world's most liveable city, although its survey has been criticised as too Anglocentric.

War and political unrest are behind all the worst-ranked cities in the world. Surprisingly, Damascus is named as only the seventh worst, ranked better than not just Baghdad but also Bangui in Central African Republic, Sana'a in Yemen, Port-au-Prince in Haiti, Khartoum in Sudan, and N'Djamena in Chad.

* This article was amended on 23 February 2016. An earlier version said Toronto was Canada's highest ranking city; that was Vancouver.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vienna named world's top city for quality of life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vienna is the world's best city to live in; Baghdad is the worst, and London, Paris and New York do not even make it into the top 35, according to international research into quality of life. German-speaking cities dominate the rankings in the 18th Mercer Quality of Life study, with Vienna joined by Zurich, Munich, Düsseldorf and Frankfurt in the top seven.

# data[].attributes.body
Measuring quality of Life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article is part of the Eurostat online publication Quality of life indicators, providing recent statistics on the quality of life in the European Union (EU). The publication presents a detailed analysis of many different dimensions of quality of life, complementing the indicator traditionally used as the measure of economic and social development, gross domestic product (GDP).

The present article is a general introduction to the set of '8+1' statistical articles (see below), sketching the conceptual, policy and methodological background: what is quality of life and how can its different aspects be measured adequately?

The need for measurement beyond GDP

Quality of life is a broad concept that encompasses a number of different dimensions (by which we understand the elements or factors making up a complete entity, that can be measured through a set of sub dimensions with an associated number of indicators for each). It encompasses both objective factors (e.g. command of material resources, health, work status, living conditions and many others) and the subjective perception one has of them. The latter depends significantly on citizens' priorities and needs. Measuring quality of life for different populations and countries in a comparable manner is a complex task, and a scoreboard of indicators covering a number of relevant dimensions is needed for this purpose.

National accounts aggregates have become an important indicator of the economic performance and living standards of our societies. This is because they allow direct comparisons to be made easily. Gross Domestic Product GDP, one of these aggregates, is the most common measure of the economic activity of a region or a country at a given time; many decision and policy makers use it as the standard benchmark, often basing their decisions or recommendations on it. It includes all final goods and services an economy produces and provides a snapshot of its performance. GDP is very useful for measuring market production (expressed in money units). However, although it was not intended as an indicator of social progress, it has been considered to be closely linked to the well-being of citizens. The following are a number of reasons why GDP is not sufficient for this purpose, and therefore needs to be complemented by other indicators.

Other measures of income reflect better households' situations

While GDP is very useful for measuring market production and providing an indicative snapshot of an economy at a given time, it does not provide a comprehensive picture of how well-off the citizens of a society are. As described in the J. Stiglitz, A. Sen and J.P. Fitoussi Report ( Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress - 2009) citizens' material living standards are better monitored by using measures of household income and consumption. Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi argue that the income of a country's citizens is 'clearly more relevant for measuring the well-being of citizens' than domestic production.

In many cases, household incomes may develop differently from real GDP and therefore provide a different picture of this aspect of citizens' well-being. As shown in Figure 1, for the period 2005-2012, GDP (in real terms) in the euro area reached its peak during the first quarter of 2008 and plunged to a record low almost a year later, in the second quarter of 2009. This sharp decrease reflects the beginning of the financial crisis. The decrease is however not reflected in citizens' income during the first years of the crisis. On the contrary, households' gross disposable income for the same period (the first quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009) seemed to slightly increase. One of the reasons for this apparent inconsistency is that social transfers (social security benefits, reimbursements etc.) seem to have absorbed and softened the effect of the crisis (at least during the first few years).

Increasing GDP today, depleting resources for tomorrow

Social, environmental and economic progress does not always go hand in hand with an increase in GDP. For example, if a country decides to cut down all its forests, it will dramatically increase its timber exports, thus increasing its GDP. If GDP were the only indicator of quality of life, this would mean that the population of this country would have greatly improved its well-being. However, the deforestation would have a significant impact on the population's quality of life in the mid and long term: loss of natural habitat, soil erosion and more. GDP definitely measures quantity, but not necessarily other aspects of production (such as distribution and potential impacts for the future).

GDP is an aggregate measure ...

... and as such cannot inform us about wealth distribution amongst the population

Even if 'quantity' were the only relevant measure of economic performance and quality of life, GDP would still not tell us the whole story about living standards. A significant increase in a society's average GDP does not automatically translate into better living standards for most of its citizens. The increase could benefit only a small part of society, leaving many groups of citizens at the same level in terms of wealth, or even worse off than before. Consequently, overall measures of economic and social well-being must also include distribution indicators in order to provide a more realistic picture of the living standards and quality of life of a society's citizens.

GDP and other economic measures need to be complemented ...

... with indicators covering other important domains in order to measure well-being

Moving beyond economic performance, a more comprehensive, wide-ranging approach is needed when trying to define and measure quality of life. While it remains very difficult to provide an overall definition with specific measurable indicators, quality of life definitely includes more than just economic production and GDP figures. It should also be stressed that some of the indicators that will be included in this scoreboard are subjective. They therefore reflect the perceptions of individuals, their own assessment of different aspects of life and overall quality of life. This type of data can only be obtained through surveys.

Different examples throughout Europe show that GDP does not always go hand in hand with other indicators that contribute to a better quality of life. Luxembourg had by far the highest GDP per capita in 2011 (68 100 PPS), but this is partially due to the high percentage of cross-border commuters in its workforce, who contribute to GDP production but are not accounted for when calculating the per capita figures. Luxembourg was followed by the Netherlands (32 700 PPS), Ireland (32 600 PPS) and Austria (32 400 PPS). At the other end of the spectrum, Bulgaria has the lowest GDP per capita (11 600 PPS), followed by Romania (11 800 PPS) and Latvia (14 700 PPS). While Estonia's GDP per capita is below the EU average (16 900 PPS, compared to the EU-28 average of 25 100 PPS) it has the highest percentage of well educated women (college or university education). Italy and Spain's GDP per capita approximately matches the EU average, but they rank first in life expectancy (82.8 and 82.4 years respectively) throughout the EU. Germany has one of the highest GDP per capita figures in Europe (30 300 PPS), but it also has one of the widest gender pay gaps (22.2 % in 2011). These are only a few examples that demonstrate the need to complement GDP and other economic indicators with a wider range of data, in order to be able to get a broader picture.

Following the publication of the Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi report (2009), there is a growing consensus that societies need to find information to complement that provided by GDP figures. This includes information in a much larger context. The European Statistical System quickly reacted to the report by setting up The Sponsorship Group on Measuring Progress, Well-Being and Sustainable Development. It presented its final report in November 2011. The report stressed the need for the European Statistical System to use a multidimensional approach when defining and trying to measure quality of life, to develop indicators measuring sustainability and to use complementary indicators coming from National Accounts that would better reflect the situation of households. An Expert Group coordinated by Eurostat with the mandate of developing a scoreboard of quality of life indicators was set up on basis of this recommendation.

Discussions on how to better measure the progress of societies and their well-being and how to sustain quality of life in the future, have led to several important initiatives, including: the 'Beyond GDP' conference (2007), the Stiglitz/Sen/Fitoussi (SSF) Commission (2009), the Eurostat Feasibility study for Well-Being Indicators (2008) and the European Commission 'GDP and beyond' communication (2009). The European Statistical System Committee (ESSC) set up a Sponsorship Group (SpG) on Measuring Progress, Well-being and Sustainable Development, which was dedicated to develop specific and concrete sets of indicators that answer the challenges described in the 'GDP and Beyond' Communication and the SSF report. Other international organizations, in particular the OECD, have also devoted major efforts to the development of this field, especially within their Better Life initiative: Measuring Well-being and Progress.

8+1 dimensions of quality of life

A first set of indicators has been published and work is still on-going to fill in the gaps and possibly make recommendations for new indicators to be collected within this framework.

Based on academic research and several initiatives, the following 8+1 dimensions/domains have been defined as an overarching framework for the measurement of well-being. Ideally, they should be considered simultaneously, because of potential trade-offs between them:

Material living conditions

Material living standards are measured on the basis of three sub-dimensions: income, consumption and material conditions (deprivation and housing). Income is an important indicator as it has an impact on most of the other indicators in the framework. There are several different indicators within this sub dimension, taken from both national accounts and household surveys (net national income, household disposable income). The same is true for consumption, within which some aggregated indicators are taken from national accounts (household consumption per capita, total consumption per capita), and other indicators for households are taken from the Household Budget Survey. Material conditions (deprivation and housing) provide important complementary information to these money-based approaches.

Productive or main activity

A number of activities fill up citizens' lives every day, the most prominent one being their work. Indicators measuring both the quantity and the quality of jobs available (working hours, balancing work and non-working life, safety and ethics of employment) are some of the indicators used in Europe to measure this aspect of quality of life.

Health is an essential part of the quality of life of citizens. Poor health can affect the general progress of society. Physical and/or mental problems also have a very detrimental effect on subjective well-being. Health conditions in Europe are mainly measured using objective health outcome indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality, the number of healthy life years, but also more subjective indicators, such as access to healthcare and self-evaluation of one's health.

In our knowledge-based economies, education plays a pivotal role in the lives of citizens and is an important factor in determining how far they progress in life. Levels of education can determine the job an individual will have. Individuals with limited skills and competences are usually excluded from a wide range of jobs and sometimes even miss out on opportunities to achieve valued goals within society. They also have fewer prospects for economic prosperity. In Europe, currently available indicators of education that are relevant for quality of life are a population's educational attainment, the number of early school leavers, self-assessed and assessed skills and participation in life-long learning.

Leisure and social interactions

The power of networks and social connections should not be underestimated when trying to measure the well-being of an individual, as they directly influence life satisfaction. In Europe, this is measured in terms of how often citizens spend time with people at sporting or cultural events or if they volunteer for different types of organisations. In addition, the potential to receive social support and the frequency of social contacts are indicators included in the framework under this dimension.

Economic and physical safety

Security is a crucial aspect of citizens' lives. Being able to plan ahead and overcome any sudden deterioration in their economic and wider environment has an impact on their quality of life. Safety is measured in terms of physical safety (e.g. the number of homicides per country) and economic safety. For the latter, wealth indicators should ideally be used, but for the moment there is no comparable data on the topic for all European countries. The ability to face unexpected expenses and having or not having arrears are therefore used as proxy variables. The crisis has shown how important economic safety is for the quality of life of Europeans.

Governance and basic rights

The right to get involved in public debates and influence the shaping of public policies is an important aspect of quality of life. Moreover, providing the right legislative guarantees for citizens is a fundamental aspect of democratic societies. Good governance depends on the participation of citizens in public and political life (for example, involvement in political parties, trade unions etc.). It is reflected also in the level of trust of citizens in the country's institutions, satisfaction with public services and the lack of discrimination. Gender discrimination measured in terms of the unadjusted pay gap is the only indicator included in this sub-dimension at the moment, but more indicators will be developed in the future.

Natural and living environment

The protection of the environment has been very high on the European agenda over the last few decades. The vast majority of European citizens believe that protecting the environment is important . Exposure to air, water and noise pollution can have a direct impact on the health of individuals and the economic prosperity of societies. Environment-related indicators are very important for assessing quality of life in Europe and in general. Both subjective (individuals' own perceptions) and objective (the amount of pollutants present in the air) indicators are included.

Overall experience of life

Overall assessment of one's life is measured using three sub-dimensions: life satisfaction (cognitive appreciation), affect (a person's feelings or emotional states, both positive and negative, typically measured with reference to a particular point in time) and eudaemonics (a sense of having meaning and purpose in one's life, or good psychological functioning.). This is in line with the OECD guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-Being. These indicators are currently being collected within the 2013 EU-SILC Ad-Hoc Module and will be available in 2015.

Data sources and availability

The collection of microdata on well-being is a key objective. Following Eurostat's proposal to collect microdata on well-being within the 2013 module of SILC, data for subjective indicators will start to be collected as European statistics on a regular basis. In the long term, while data for several of the required indicators are readily available from other sources (e.g. LFS for the Productive or Main Activity dimension), EU-SILC should be further developed to serve as the core EU instrument connecting the different dimensions of quality of life on an individual level and reflecting their dynamic interdependencies. In order to make the system of indicators less complex and to allow for analysis covering the 8+1 dimensions of quality of life, a very limited number of headline indicators will be selected for each dimension, while synthetic indicators will be developed for highly correlated variables. A scoreboard of uncorrelated primary indicators should complete the picture.

Conclusion

As highlighted above, it remains difficult to measure the quality of life of (European) citizens but preliminary results show it is worth going beyond GDP figures. A multidimensional approach is necessary to get a more comprehensive view of quality of life and avoid any misleading conclusions.

Further Eurostat information

Publications

Dedicated section

Source data for tables, figures and maps (MS Excel)

Other information

COM final 433/2009 - European Commission - GDP and beyond - Measuring progress in a changing world

Regulation 62/2012 of 24 January 2012 concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC)

External links

1. Stiglitz, Sen, Fitoussi, et al. (2009) Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, p.24

2. "Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment" - Special Eurobarometer 365, June 2011

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Quality of life indicators - measuring quality of life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article is part of the Eurostat online publication Quality of life indicators, providing recent statistics on the quality of life in the European Union (EU). The publication presents a detailed analysis of many different dimensions of quality of life, complementing the indicator traditionally used as the measure of economic and social development, gross domestic product (GDP).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vienna ranks highest for quality of living for the 9th year in a row

Honolulu ranks first for city sanitation, an important factor in cities' attractiveness

20th anniversary edition: emerging cities increasing living standards to attract mobile talent

UK's highest ranked city, London, ranks 41st for quality of living, 67th for sanitation

Despite economic volatility in Europe due to uncertainty around Brexit as well as increased political volatility in the region overall, many of its cities still offer the world's highest quality of living and continue to remain attractive destinations for expatriates on assignment, according to Mercer's 20th annual Quality of Living survey. Cities in emerging markets, though challenged by economic and political turmoil, are catching up with top ranking cities following decades of investing in infrastructure, recreational facilities and housing in order to attract talent and multinational businesses.

Vienna tops the ranking for the 9 th year running and is followed by Zurich (2), Auckland and Munich in joint 3 rd place. In 5 th place Vancouver completes the top five and is the highest ranking city in North America. Singapore (25) and Montevideo (77) are the highest ranking cities in Asia and Latin America respectively.

"With increasing globalisation and changing demographic of the workforce - attracting and retaining the right talent is set to be one of the key challenges for businesses over the next five years," said Ilya Bonic, Senior Partner and President of Mercer's Career business. "An increasingly diverse workforce is both more mobile and digital with highly diverging requirements and aspirations in terms of career, lifestyle and ultimately where and how they want to work. Companies need to consider these factors in their value proposition to both their local and their expatriate employees."

Mercer's authoritative survey is one of the world's most comprehensive and is conducted annually to enable multinational companies and other organisations to compensate employees fairly when placing them on international assignments. In addition to valuable data on relative quality of living, Mercer's surveys provide hardship premium recommendations for more than 450 cities throughout the world; this year's ranking includes 231 of these cities.

This year, Mercer provides a separate ranking on City Sanitation, which analyses cities' waste removal and sewage infrastructure, levels of infectious disease, air pollution, water availability and quality - all important aspects of a city's attractiveness for both talent and businesses. Honolulu tops the City Sanitation ranking, followed by Helsinki and Ottawa in joint second, whereas Dhaka (230) and Port au Prince (231) fill the bottom places.

"How successful an international assignment is hinges on the personal and professional wellbeing of the individual expatriate and the welfare of their families," said Slagin Parakatil, Principal at Mercer and Global Product Owner for its Quality of Living research. "As well as a significant hinder to a city's, business and talent attractiveness, poor quality of living can considerably impact on an expatriate's lifestyle. Younger generations, millennials in particular, often have high expectations in terms of lifestyle, leisure and entertainment opportunities. Companies sending expatriates abroad need to get the full picture of conditions on the ground in order to compensate their employees appropriately for any decrease in living standards."

"Equally those organisations considering opening an office in a new location should make a short, medium and long term assessment of the city's infrastructure. Decision makers increasingly acknowledge that globalisation is challenging cities to inform, innovate and compete to attract people and investments - the key to a city's future," added Mr Parakatil.
Europe
Vienna remains the highest ranking city in Europe and globally, providing resident and expatriates with high security, well-structured public transportation and a variety of cultural and recreation facilities. Munich jumped to 3 rd position as over time the city has made a concerted effort to attract talent and businesses by continuously investing in high-tech infrastructure and promoting its cultural facilities. As a result of the terrorist attack in Stockholm (23) the city drops three places whereas Oslo (25) and Lisbon (38) increase their rankings by six and five places respectively. London remains further down the list as due to its persistent issues with traffic congestion and air pollution it drops one place to rank 41 st.

The City Sanitation ranking sees several Nordic cities ranked among the top 10 globally, with Helsinki in 2 nd and Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm all tied in 8 th place.
Americas
In North America, Canadian cities rank highest for quality of living with Vancouver (5) again taking the regional top spot. San Francisco (30) is the highest ranking US city, followed by Boston (35), Honolulu (36), Seattle (44), and New York (45). Increasing crime rates cause Los Angeles (64) to drop six places. Dropping two places, Monterrey (112) is the highest ranking city in Mexico, while its capital, Mexico City, drops one to rank 129 th.

In South America, Montevideo (77) ranks highest for quality of living, followed by Buenos Aires (91) and Santiago (92). Caracas (193) and Port au Prince (228) are the lowest ranking cities in the region.

Dropping 21 places, the city of San Juan (96) sees the highest drop in the ranking globally.

In the City Sanitation ranking, Honolulu (1) the highest in the region and globally, followed by Ottawa (2). Montevideo (71) is the highest ranking South American city.
Middle East and Africa
Dubai (74) continues to rank highest for quality of living across the Middle East, closely followed by Abu Dhabi (77), up two places. Damascus (225), Sana'a (229) and Baghdad (231) are the region's three lowest-ranked cities for quality of living. Both ranking 65th, Abu Dhabi and Dubai top the regional list for City Sanitation. Only four other cities in this region make the top 100, including Muscat (70), Tel Aviv (87), Manama (93), and Kuwait City (99).

Port Louis (83) is the highest ranking African city for quality of living followed by the Durban (89), Cape Town (94) and Johannesburg (95). N'Djamena (226), Khartoum (227) and Bangui (230) stay the lowest ranked in the region. Persistent political instability, poverty, extreme climates and lack of appropriate infrastructure investments means these cities have the lowest quality of living worldwide.

Victoria (58) ranks highest on the continent for City Sanitation, followed by Durban (73) and Port Louis (80), whereas Brazzaville (225) and Antananarivo (226) fill the bottom places.

Asia-Pacific
Illustrating the region's great disparity in quality of living, Singapore remains the highest ranking city in 25 th place whereas Dhaka ranks 216 th. In Southeast Asia, Kuala Lumpur (85) follows Singapore; other key cities include Bangkok (132), Manila (137), and Jakarta (142). Five Japanese cities top the ranking for East Asia: Tokyo (50), Kobe (50), Yokohama (55), Osaka (59), and Nagoya (64). Other notable cities in Asia include Hong Kong (71), Seoul (79), Taipei (84), Shanghai (103), and Beijing (119). City Sanitation rankings also vary considerably across the region with Kobe (8) the highest ranking and Dhaka (230) the lowest.

New Zealand and Australia continue to rank highly in quality of living: Auckland (3), Sydney (10), Wellington (15), and Melbourne (16) all remain in the top 20. The region's cities also rank high for City Sanitation, with Auckland in 5 th globally and Adelaide in 7 th.
-Ends-
Notes to Editors
Mercer produces worldwide Quality of Living rankings annually from its Worldwide Quality of Living Surveys. Individual reports are produced for each city surveyed. Moreover, comparative Quality of Living indexes between a base city and host city are available, as are multiple-city comparisons. Details are available at www.mercer.com/qualityofliving.

The data was largely analysed between September and November 2017, and it will be updated regularly to account for changing circumstances. In particular, the assessments will be revised to reflect significant political, economic, and environmental developments.The list of rankings is provided to media for reference, and should not be published in full. The top 10 and bottom 10 cities in either list may be reproduced in a table.

The information and data obtained through the Quality of Living reports are for information purposes only and are intended for use by multinational organisations, government agencies, and municipalities. They are not designed or intended for use as the basis for foreign investment or tourism. In no event will Mercer be liable for any decision made or action taken in reliance of the results obtained through the use of, or the information or data contained in, the reports. While the reports have been prepared based upon sources, information, and systems believed to be reliable and accurate, they are provided on an "as-is" basis, and Mercer accepts no responsibility/liability for the validity/accuracy (or otherwise) of the resources/data used to compile the reports. Mercer and its affiliates make no representations or warranties with respect to the reports, and disclaim all express, implied and statutory warranties of any kind, including, representations and implied warranties of quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose.
Quality of Living - City Assessment: Dedicated for Cities
Mercer also helps municipalities to assess factors that can improve their quality of living rankings. In a global environment, employers have many choices about where to deploy their mobile employees and set up new business. A city's quality of living can be an important variable for employers to consider.

Leaders in many cities want to understand the specific factors that affect their residents' quality of living and address those issues that lower a city's overall quality-of-living ranking. Mercer advises municipalities by using a holistic approach that addresses the goals of progressing towards excellence and attracting both multinational companies and globally mobile talent by improving the elements that are measured in its Quality of Living survey.
Mercer Hardship Allowance Recommendations
Mercer evaluates local living conditions in more than 450 cities surveyed worldwide. Living conditions are analysed according to 39 factors, grouped in 10 categories:

Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc.).

Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services).

Socio-cultural environment (media availability and censorship, limitations on personal freedom).

Medical and health considerations (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc.).

Schools and education (standards and availability of international schools).

Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transportation, traffic congestion, etc.).

Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc.).

Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc.).

Housing (rental housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services).

Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters).

The scores attributed to each factor, which are weighted to reflect their importance to expatriates, permit objective city-to-city comparisons. The result is a Quality of Living index that compares relative differences between any two locations evaluated. For the indices to be used effectively, Mercer has created a grid that enables users to link the resulting index to a quality of living allowance amount by recommending a percentage value in relation to the index.
About Mercer
Mercer delivers advice and technology-driven solutions that help organisations meet the health, wealth and career needs of a changing workforce. Mercer's more than 22,000 employees are based in 44 countries and the firm operates in over 130 countries. Mercer is a wholly owned subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies (NYSE: MMC), the leading global professional services firm in the areas of risk, strategy and people. With nearly 65,000 colleagues and annual revenue over $14 billion, through its market-leading companies including Marsh, Guy Carpenter and Oliver Wyman, Marsh & McLennan helps clients navigate an increasingly dynamic and complex environment. For more information, visit www.mercer.com. Follow Mercer on Twitter @Mercer. In the UK, Mercer Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vienna tops Mercer's 20th Quality of Living ranking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vienna ranks highest for quality of living for the 9th year in a row Honolulu ranks first for city sanitation, an important factor in cities' attractiveness 20th anniversary edition: emerging cities increasing living standards to attract mobile talent UK's highest ranked city, London, ranks 41st for quality of living, 67th

# data[].attributes.body
Everyone wants it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By IESE Insight

"Quality of life" has quickly become a catch-all term, but confusion over what it actually means could have serious negative consequences according to some recent research.

Once a term largely used by health-care professionals; now everyone from economists and advertising executives care about offering good "quality of life." But what does it mean, and how can businesses, as well as physicians, help to improve it, if nobody can clearly define what it is? In an article for Europe's Journal of Psychology, IESE's Marta Elvira, alongside other authors[1], tries to pin down this elusive concept.

A Matter of Life and Death

As medical advances have helped to increase longevity, our focus has shifted from the quantity to the quality of life.

While scientists may resort to rating scales to measure pain, or scoring systems to quantify disabilities, the authors believe that trying to measure "quality of life" this way may be going too far.

"Quality of life" is subjective and multidimensional, encompassing positive and negative features of life. It's a dynamic condition that responds to life events: A job loss, illness or other upheavals can change one's definition of "quality of life" rather quickly and dramatically.

Even though measuring it is difficult, clarity is extremely important, especially for medical practitioners, who often take "quality of life" into account when considering whether life-sustaining medical intervention should be withheld for severely disabled or ill patients. As such, coming up with a distinct definition is ethically important, and not just a case of splitting hairs.

The Search for a Definition

An analysis of scientific papers over the past 20 years shows that a precise, clear and shared definition is a long way off. Often researchers don't even attempt to define the concept, using it instead as an indicator. Among the observations made about "quality of life" is that it encompasses:

life satisfaction, which is subjective and may fluctuate.

multidimensional factors that include everything from physical health, psychological state, level of independence, family, education, wealth, religious beliefs, a sense of optimism, local services and transport, employment, social relationships, housing and the environment.

cultural perspectives, values, personal expectations and goals of what we want from life.

not just the absence of disease but the presence of physical, mental and social well-being. The authors stress the need for multidisciplinary medical teams who can develop a perspective on psychosocial needs and not just physical care.

our interpretation of facts and events, which helps to explain why some disabled people can report an excellent "quality of life" while others can't.

our level of acceptance of our current condition, and our ability to regulate negative thoughts and emotions about that condition.

Subjectivity appears to be fundamental to our understanding of "quality of life." The authors also urge that other variables not strictly related to physical health, such as spiritual and social health, should be assessed in the future.

As it stands, the confusion over what "quality of life" means does little to help professionals in any field, and could have serious ethical consequences.

[1] Barbara Barcaccia, Giuseppe Esposito, Maria Matarese, Marta Bertolaso and Maria Grazia De Marinis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Quality Of Life: Everyone Wants It, But What Is It?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By IESE Insight "Quality of life" has quickly become a catch-all term, but confusion over what it actually means could have serious negative consequences according to some recent research. Once a term largely used by health-care professionals; now everyone from economists and advertising executives care about offering good "quality of life."